Best MM?

What kind of arm is the ADC compatible with?  Is the abnormally high compliance figure correct? 

Dear @orpheus10 : Well, in life all is relative and from that point of view what for you is " heaven " for other gentleman can be BS.

I think that everything depends on the overall context/scenario where " things " happens, how are surrounded and that context involve objectivity/subjectivity that's relative to: knowledge levels, ignorance levels, experiences and everithing that has relationship with live MUSIC and audio reproduction in home systems.

R.

Dear @dgarretson : IMHO the Etna  needs a better tonearm and preferable no-knife bearing and certainly not an all metal headshell that's not a good " friend " for any cartridge. You own the Kuzma that's very well damped tonearm. In the other side tubes are not the best " friend " for any cartridge either. I know: all is relative as orpheus pointed out.

R.

Dear @vortrex : Yes, that figure is correct. I tested in different arms not only mines but from the other gentlemans too. We don't have any problem for that regards.

Through that long MM thread we had many many examples of very high compliance cartridges mounted on not medium but even very high mass tonearms with good performances, no trouble at all.

R.

I have received my Induced Magnet ADC high-compliance cartridge not so long ago. This is New Old Stock of the ADC TRX-2, but i have not tried it yet :) I hope it’s much better than ADC Astrion which i had NOS, but didn’t liked.

I just put together some facts about ADC and thair lastest TRX series. I’m sure someone will find it interesting.

Audio innovator Peter Pritchard founded ADC (Audio Dynamics Corporation) in USA in the early 1960’s. Since that day the ADC was a manufacturer of very high performances magnetic phono cartridges. ADC pickups were notable for their extremely high compliance and low tracking forces. They were all based on his "induced magnet" principle, which derived from the older GE variable-reluctance cartridges that had been game-changers for affordable magnetic phono pick-ups in the 1950s. GE’s patent, filed May 2, 1960, acknowledges Peter Ernest Pritchard as the inventor. Later, a very successful speaker line produced locally in New Milford. ADC also made lighweight tonearms.

Mr.Pritchard sold ADC in the late 1970s and began producing the successful Sonus line of phono pickups.

However, the ADC (Audio Dynamics Corporation) under a new ownership continued making High-End cartridges. To develop ADC sound the company hired Nakansuka San from Japan, now he’s the owner of ultra high-end brand ZYX. You may think that ZYX is this brave new phono cartridge manufacturer, but its founder and chief designer, Hisayoshi Nakatsuka, is far from being a newcomer. Nakatsuka San has been working for Namiki (there he managed the OEM cartridge business for several manufacturers), Accuphase, Adcom, Ortofon ... Back in the 70’s top of the line ADC TRX series was designed by Nakatsuka San (ZYX). Flagship models ADC TRX-2 with Sapphire cantilever and Vital II nude diamond is one of the best ADC cartridge designed under new ownership.

The tri-pole Induced Magnetic System has a unique internal construction featuring a three-pole armature made of mu-metal. Its advantages include low-distortion tracing of stereo signals and consistently wide strereo separation across a wide frequency range. In its magnetic circuit a samarium cobalt magnet is used which, together with the 3-pole armature, forms an efficient induced magnet system.

The tension wire, of special resin, helps define the fulcrum of the cantilever. In combination with a damper made of selected rubber, it provides the cartridge with higher compliance, better tracking and wider dynamic range.

The cartridge body is fashioned from die-cast aluminum, and the stylus assembly is firmly fixed to the body by a screw so no part of the cartridge resonates or vibrates. This prevents sound coloration.

The TRX-2 cantilever is a precision-made sapphire tube. Due to its excellent hardness and rigidity resonance is reduced to practically zero. The stylus tip is a nude diamond, featuring low mass and large contact area (ADC Vital III type PH LineContact 0.32 x 1.57 mil) for lower record wear. This is a wire suspension system to define the fulcrum and provide extended frequency response and low distortion at low tracking force.


Specification of the ADC TRX-2 IM cartridge:
Stylus type: nude PH line contact (vital III)
Cantilever: sapphire tube
Output voltage: 3mV
Channel balance: within 0.5dB
Channel separation (1kHz): more than 30dB
Frequency response (+/-1.5dB): 20 to 30,000Hz
Compliance: 40cu
Impedance (1kHz): 3.0 kOhm
DC Resistance: 960 Ohm
Tracking force: 1.2g (+/- 0.2g)
Load resistance: 47K ohms (Capacitance 275pF)
Weight: 6.5g

An old company address:
BSR (USA) LTD.
ADC Division
Route 303
Blauvelt, N.Y. 10913. U.S.A.

I have a never-used TRX-2 that's been sitting in my cartridge drawer for a couple of years. I'll be interested in your opinion.

Dear @wrm57 : I own it, nothing to " die for ", good an that's all.

R.

@vortrex : https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/adc-26-best-pritchard-cartridge-ever-or-best-cartridge-ever

R.

Thanks chakster, that was really interesting!

The guy I bought my Audio Note IQ3 from said "stop listening with your wallet!" Much appreciated.

Dear @dhcod : That Audio Note is better that what people could think and part as the same cartridge " family " like the very good Reson or Goldring and I can’t remember which other one.
Same " family " but with different quality performance because each company ask for some especial cartridge characteristics.

" stop listening with your wallet ", I think is rigth. Normally as more expensive is a cartridge in a manufacturer line as better quality performance has it. The problem is the stratosferic high prices the MC cartridges have today but when even at those prices there are gentlemans that pay for the the trend will continue: higher and higher with out true foundation of real quality performance levels that can in true justify those " crazy " high dollars.Reson is very good too, I owned.

R.

Dear @wrm57 : I own it, nothing to " die for ", good an that's all.

Thanks, Raul. I think I'll mount it soon and see how it fares against my Grace F-14 with a SoundSmith OCL, which I like quite a bit.

Bill

Dear @wrm57 : Problem with BSR was that they did not respect all the Pritchard IM cartridge motor principles/foundation After pritchard ADC chnages and not for the better.

R.

Are we to go by objective specifications, or a subjective judges recommendations? You be the judge?

While it's for certain we can not personally review all the cartridges we would like to, I have discovered something that works for me; I place a lot of validity in the reviewers judgment who uses music that I like; which is jazz, with emphasis on the vocals.

If the reviewer uses music that you couldn't pay me to listen to, he has less credibility.

The bottom line is; I'm in this game to satisfy one person, and one person only.

Here are objective specifications you can compare. I have no idea how they compare in regard to rank with each other; you and others can be the judge of that.

The TRX-2 cantilever is a precision-made sapphire tube. Due to its excellent hardness and rigidity resonance is reduced to practically zero. The stylus tip is a nude diamond, featuring low mass and large contact area (ADC Vital III type PH LineContact 0.32 x 1.57 mil) for lower record wear. This is a wire suspension system to define the fulcrum and provide extended frequency response and low distortion at low tracking force.


Specification of the ADC TRX-2 IM cartridge:
Stylus type: nude PH line contact (vital III)
Cantilever: sapphire tube
Output voltage: 3mV
Channel balance: within 0.5dB
Channel separation (1kHz): more than 30dB
Frequency response (+/-1.5dB): 20 to 30,000Hz
Compliance: 40cu
Impedance (1kHz): 3.0 kOhm
DC Resistance: 960 Ohm
Tracking force: 1.2g (+/- 0.2g)
Load resistance: 47K ohms (Capacitance 275pF)
Weight: 6.5g






The ADC 26 is one of the finest in a renowned line of cartridges, designed and built by the world's foremost quality pickup manufacturer.

Using the unique induced magnet principle, it combines minute stylus tip mass and high compliance, resulting in unparalleled performance.

Specifications
Output: 4mv at 55 cms/sec recorded velocity

Tracking force: 0.7g

Frequency response: 10Hz to 24kHz +- 2dB

Stylus: Elliptical contact

Vertical tracking angle: 15 degrees

Recommended load impedance: 47,000 ohms nominal




The Master2 and Reference2 models use a five piece OTL cantilever technology achieving an additional 5% tip mass reduction over the Platinum2 and Sonata2 models. The coils are wound with ultra-high purity long crystal (UHPLC) oxygen free copper wire. The Master2 model is mounted with Grado's specially designed nude elliptical diamond, and the Reference1 model uses Grado's true ellipsoid design diamond. These cartridges are individually calibrated.

Reference V2
OUTPUT: 4.8mV @ 5 CMV (45)
CONTROLLED FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 10-60 KHZ
CHANNEL SEPARATION:
AVERAGE 40 DB - 10-30 KHZ
LOAD: 47,000 OHMS
INDUCTANCE: 40 mh
RESISTANCE: 600 OHMS
NON SENSITIVE TO CAPACITIVE LOAD
CHASSIS MASS: 10 GRAMS
TRACKING FORCE: 1.5 - 1.9 GRAMS

If you want to compare specs then look at Victor X-1II 

JVC/Victor has established a new and dynamic relationship between the cartridge design and quality by investing the Pulse-Trian Analytical Method. The X-1 was the first product designed with new method, the X1-II is an improved version featured a wide range, clear definition and transparent tone quality. The X1-II faithfully reproduce silence, however transient, between notes and add tremendous presence to the reproduction of music. Because of the low-mass moving structure, the response is extended to 60kHz.  


0.15mm Square Shibata Stylus:

Shibata stylus shape of the JVC Victor X-1II cartridge distinguishes itself by having the necessary small contact surface at the horizontal level for playback of the ultra-high frequencies found on CD-4 quadraphonic records. At the vertical level, the special shape of the stylus gives a wider contact surface than is the case with either spherical or elliptical styli. Various cartridge manufacturers have been inspired by the Shibata shape and now produce very expensive cartridges with stylus shapes that give the same advantages as the Shibata. These have names such as bi-elliptical, pramanic, quadrahedral, hyperbolic, pathemax, and Fine Line. Although CD-4 and other quadraphonic systems never really caught on with consumers, they have helped to speed up the development of stylus types that improve playback of stereo records in the form of a more precise treble reproduction, lower distortion, and less record wear.

Beryllium Cantilever:  

The cantilever is made of beryllium, a metal that is far lighter and stronger than widely-used aluminium or titanium. It has greater velocity of sound propagation, and it’s flat response extends into the super high frequency range.


Density (gr/cm): 1.84 Beryllium / 2.69 Aluminum / 4.54 Titanium

Young Modulus (kg/mm): 28,000 Beryllium / 7,400 Aluminum / 11,000 Titanium

Velocity Of Sound Propagation (m/sec): 12,600 Beryllium / 6,420 Aluminum / 5,990 Titanium


One Point Suspension:

A very thin wire, mounted to the center-hold bushing, suspends the moving structure. Since this design clearly defines the fulcrum of the moving structure, intermodulation distortion is reduced.


Samarium Cobalt Magnet:

JVC Victor has used samarium cobalt for the magnet piece, a material that has low specific gravity and high energy product. Thanks to this new alloy formation, the moving structure is lightweight, and offers improving tracking ability and stable output.


Laminated Core Pole Pieces:

Pole pieces are made of laminated core permalloy. This superior construction leads to improved frequency response. Loss of information in the super high frequencies, often experienced with high-impedance MM-type cartridges, is AVOIDED!


Pulse-Train Analytical Method:

A JVC-developed method used for measuring and analyzing the hitherto unmeasurable group-delay and phase characteristics of a transducer (speaker, cartridge, etc.) with the assistance of a specially-cut record containing pulsive signals, coupled with a computer data processing system. This new analytical method is largely responsible for the exceptional tonal performance of the X1II as it has helped JVC find ways to cope with transient distortion and group delay distortion. It showed that a cartridge should be lightweight, which in turn has led to the use of a shortened cantilever made of superlight beryllium and a one point suspension in the X1II.


Specifications Victor X1II:

Type: moving magnet
Stylus: (DT-X2) 0.15mm Shibata diamond tip.
Frequency response: 10 to 60,000Hz
Tracking Force: 1,5g (+/- 0,2g)
Dynamic Compliance (@100Hz): 12cu
Output: more 3.0mV (1kHz, 5cm/sec)
Channel balance: less than 1.0dB
Channel separation: more than 25dB
Impedance: 2.2 kOhms (1kHz)
Load: 47 to 100 kohms
Weight: 7.5g
 

Where does one get a replacement stylus for a Victor X1II?

Dear @dhcod : I own the JVC X-1 MK2, as fact was me whom put in the " audio stage ". It's a good performer but as @orpheus10 pointed out no one can touch not even near the ADC 26/27 quality performance level, this ones belongs to a very different " quality league ".

R.

Thanks but I was just curious. For that matter where do you get an ADC stylus?

Why do some of the eBay Victor X-1ii say titanium cantilever instead of beryllium? 

Dear @vortrex : Maybe by ignorance:

https://www.vinylengine.com/library/jvc/x1.shtml

R.

@dhcod : original JVC or ADC and other vintage ones are almost no wAY TO FIND OUT REPLACEMENT STYLUS.

To make a long story long, I am an Electronics Technician, with a first class license; that's how I earned a living for my entire working life.

It was my philosophy that it was all in the specifications. Then one day my prized SS preamp bit the dust. I was curious as to why people would pay so much for tube preamps, that were not half as good as mine according to the specifications.

I got a loaner CJ PV 10, that had audible distortion, but the music sounded better than my highly rated SS amp with the very best specifications; that's when I decided to listen to those people who call themselves "Audiophiles", who don't even know ohm's law.

Now I listen carefully to what they have to say, because the bottom line is; "What does the music sound like when played through a piece of equipment"? The quality of that sound is a combination of things, and one of them is high price parts. That means that high quality sound ain't gonna be cheap.

When somebody tells me a $200. cartridge is going to sound better than a 1K cartridge, I'm skeptical. This is in reference to the best Stanton and Pickering cartridges. Those cartridges were in reference to "Mono"; yes, I believe they could compare with today's best, if were talking about "Mono", but I'm not talking about, Mono, I'm talking about a holographic 3D sound stage.

Raul stated that 1K was not much money; if that's all you can afford, it's a lot of money; that's what I meant by, "It's all relative".

While there are as many different colors of sound as there are colors of the rainbow, each one of these colors has to be compared within it's price range; "There ain't no free lunch", and if there is, I want to be the first to get it.


If I was in the market for a very expensive cartridge, this is the one I would buy;


    https://www.ttvjaudio.com/Grado_Epoch_Phono_Cartridge_p/gra0000075.htm


That's because each time I have gone up the Grado price line, I have been well satisfied; their color of the rainbow is my color.

Since I was a born music lover, I have been in this game all of my life; however, I've only been in the "high end" since 1990.

dEAR @orpheus10 : 1k FOR THAT nos VINTAGE 981 is not very high comparing with the today really high prices as the one example in the Grado Epoch that could or not be in true justified by its quality level performance.

Btw, if I remember Stanton/Pickering had its own vintage Epoch models. Of course only the name.

I own 2-3 vintage Grado cartridges and all sounds good and I have no doubt that the Epoch/Aeon are really good but for 12K I will love to put one of my ADC 26/27 samples " face to face ".

At the end the cartridge main motor foundation as a transducer just did not changed at all, still are the same as 50 years ago. We discuss reciently about with other gentlemans in the thread: Diamond is a man's friend? ( or something like this. ).

R.

@vortrex

Why do some of the eBay Victor X-1ii say titanium cantilever instead of beryllium?

X-1II and X-1IIE are two different models, two completely different cantilevers and also completely different diamonds.

X-1II is Beryllium/Shibata (clear plastic)
X-1IIe is Titanium/Elliptical (orange plastic)

This is Beryllium cantilever with Nude Shibata stylus tip for X-1II

This is Titanium cantilever with Nude Elliptical tip. This link must be used for correct info about japanese cartridges (not a vinylengine where normally i can see a lot of missinformation). X-1IIe has a titanium tapered pipe cantilever.

I’ve been able to find some NOS styli for Victor "X" series of cartridges, but they are very rare @dhcod

Jukeboxes in the late 50's and early 60's was the "high end" of that time. The reason they had the best cartridges, and 45 RPM turntables was quite simple; they pulled quarters out of patrons pockets in bars. No one I knew, nor did I have anything to compare to those jukeboxes.

Gangsters fought wars over whose jukebox was going to be where. The jukebox made more money than the lounge. This was because of the quality of the sound they delivered; they were made of the finest tube electronics, and the very top cartridges of that time.


  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jukebox


This is the best I could find, and it doesn't even give a hint as to the quality of jukeboxes in the city; the nuances, and the subtlety of those nuances that made this tune what it was, are nearly impossible to duplicate. Maybe I'm there, maybe not; I don't have a late 50's jukebox to compare.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHold6ylvEM



Personnel
Ray Charles – piano, electric piano, alto saxophone ("Soul Brothers')
Milt Jackson – vibraphone, piano ("Soul Brothers," "How Long, How Long Blues," guitar ("Bag's Guitar Blues")
Billy Mitchell – tenor saxophone
Connie Kay – drums
Oscar Pettiford – bass
Skeeter Best – guitar
Kenny Burrell – guitar


Each one of those artists was a star in his own right; what we are talking about is the comparison with this music from the jukebox, with listening to those artists live.

That was Skeeter Best on guitar.

Let me repeat; it's the nuances, and the subtlety of the nuances that are so difficult to reproduce; everything in the record chain has to be perfect.

There’s something I left out; could those cartridges reproduce the "sound stage" I now demand?

As I recall, the cartridges were the top of the line Stanton and Pickering.

Let us put things in their proper perspective; this stuff was a lot cheaper in 1960, and it was what the average person played music on; that's why jukeboxes pulled in so many quarters.


    https://www.vinylengine.com/turntable_forum/viewtopic.php?t=40994


    https://www.turntableneedles.com/Record_Player_Phono_Cartridges-Ceramic


This was the high end in 1960, and few people owned Fisher; my rig was Emerson.


      http://www.fisherconsoles.com/brochures,%20catalogs/1960%20Fisher%20Catalog.pdf


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_Electronics


This was a lot of money at that time, and you got a lot of audio for your money.


  http://www.fisherconsoles.com/president%20IV.html


I read some comments on "consoles" and most of them had no idea what they were talking about; Magnavox was good while Fisher and Grundig were very good.

Some "brandless" consoles were just beautiful furniture.



      https://www.google.com/search?q=magnavox+console+1960&oq=magnavox+console+1960&aqs=chrome..6...


Grundig Majestic from Germany was tops;


        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundig



            https://www.google.com/search?q=Grundig+majestic+console&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&f...:



These consoles produced some of the most beautiful music; it soothed me to sleep and I had sweet dreams. I believe the cabinet and the wood played a big part in the sound.


While all that equipment sounded good at the time, the only thing that comes remotely close to my moderate "high end rig" is the jukebox, and we are talking strictly "mono"


"So much for the good old days"


   

Raul, I've got a question for you; it's not that I doubt the validity of your evaluation of cartridges, but I wonder what music you use to evaluate.

For example; what differences would you find when evaluating this music with different cartridges; in the same price range of course, let's try over 1K but less than 2K.


        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHold6ylvEM

@orpheus10  

this stuff was a lot cheaper in 1960, and it was what the average person played music on; that's why jukeboxes pulled in so many quarters.

I like music recorded and pressed in the 60s and 70s, some of those original records cost more than high-end euipment today. I have some very rare 45s, not all of them recorded quite good, some musicians recorded and released only 1 x 45 sigle and nothing else, not even LP, nothing. Some private press 45s only reached 300 copies. You can imagine how rare some of them today. But i don't play them on 60s equipment, i think from mid 70s to mid 80s some of the best cartridges were born and they are still unbeatable by most of th modern carts.  

Dear Chakster,  I was reading a very interesting white paper on static electricity and vinyl reproduction, published by Shure in 1978, when I came across this very interesting comment on the use of exotic metals in cantilever construction.  Of course, Shure is here defending their own choice of using a "special" alloy of aluminum in what was then their latest flagship cartridge, the V15 Type IV.  I think you can consult the referenced article at the bottom, if you want to see some data in support of what they wrote here:

"What material is used to make the shank? Why? Why not use Beryllium or Boron, etc.?
Answer:
Normally it is not our policy to divulge the material and proprietary processes that are used to fabricate our products. In this case, however, a departure from that policy is warranted, because of the great deal of confusion that seems to exist in the marketplace as to the pros and cons of certain exotic materials, such as Beryllium, Boron, Titanium, etc. It seems that by the sheer sound of these exotic and strange names, tremendous performance advantages are implied. Since these materials were developed for space age applications, it is easy to understand that there is a connotation of super strength and other advantages.

Shure has made use of and studied a variety of these materials for quite a while. In the early days, Beryllium Copper was used, then Magnesium, Aluminum, and special Aluminum alloys. Aluminum and Beryllium combinations were used for example, in the V15 Type II stylus as early as 1967. A special heat treated Aluminum alloy is used in the V15 Type IV telescopic stylus assembly. This coupled with its shape and structure determines the performance criteria."

The method of analysis is outlined in L. Happ’s paper, "Design Considerations of the V15 Type IV Phonograph Stylus."

Dear @orpheus10 : I really like R.Charles and Milt. The Bag's Groove by MJ is a great composition. I listen him with Dizzy, C.Bassie, Coltrane and obviously with the M. Jazz Quartet.

I can't remember that recording, maybe I own who knows because with over 7K LP's is not easy to remember all.

Anyway, my evaluation whole proccess is not exactly to listen to all one side LP or even one complete LP track.
Over several years I choosed some LP tracks of every kind of MUSIC that over the time I up-dated if I found out something especiall to evaluate with.
What I do is to listen small parts of a LP tracks with very special instrument sounds, distortions, special noices and even clicks/pops that even thiese clicks are performed by diferent cartridges with diferent tones.

I'm looking not only for very special kind of every kind sound but very dificult to listen it in precise and clear/transparent way. Example: a tinny really tinned triangle sound in a " tutti " high SPL of an orchestra.
I have tracks for every kind of " audiophile " quality sound: brigthness, agrseviness, mistraking, detail, power, dynamics, rythm, bass foundation , high frequency definition, bass overhang, tigthness, tracking abilities, saturation, etc, etc, etc.

After all those very precise and individual characteristics then I follow with complete tracks/side lp as a overall evaluation where I'm looking for the sound of a live event.
My evaluation always is at near field seat position and some times when I have doubts I try headphones.
Normally I try to even SPL in between the items under evaluation and I listen at: 75db, 84dbs, 90dbs and 95dbs continuous SPL with peaks at 6db-7db SPL over the continuous SPL listening.
Under that evaluation I use too some CDs to confirm mainly in the bass range .

My proccess is very personal simple for me but could be complex for other gentlemans and always use the same tracks and same LPs. TYhrough my evaluation proccess I can evaluate in no more than an hour any single home audio system with almost no mistakes in the conclutions, the proccess is almost bullet proof not because I say so but some audiophiles in the USA that I was at their places can confirm about and of course my audio friends here in México.

The foundations of my whole proccess was and is developed to know how away/near I'm of my main home room/system main target: truer to the recording.

Regards and enjoy the MUSIC NOT DISTORTIONS,
R.

Raul, the question I asked was a very difficult one to answer; it involved different characteristics of the same high quality cartridges.

For example: let's compare cartridges rated "B" by "Stereophile"; we already know they're good cartridges, we're simply concerned with the differences in these cartridges.

The question I asked pertained to the subtle nuances in that particular tune; how those nuances are delivered make a lot of difference; all of the difference to me.

I'll post the tune again and point them out to you. While the entire tune is a composite of nuances, they are most critical beginning with the bass at 5:55 and then the guitar at 6:52 all the way to the end.

This was a 45 RPM mono; only the best rigs can capture all the nuances; maybe only the best ears can hear them.


      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHold6ylvEM


Possibly, a 15K cartridge does everything perfectly, but not a 1K cartridge; that's why it's necessary for me to isolate what's most important to my musical enjoyment and go with that.

Dear @orpheus10 : That recording can works for some kind of evaluation but nuances is not per se what defines the overall differences. In that recording those nuances could be way obvious and what I do through my proccess is more " tigth " " less tolerant " and way lower nuances.
As I said the first part of my test/evaluation proccess is with very special " isolated " music information. Inside my proccess I have parts of LP tracks for those tiny nuances but additional to nuances due that the item under evaluation gives you more information/pick-up a little more information for better tracking abilities.

The true is that an overall proccess as the one I devloped over the years is really complex but gives you many things if you are well self trained on it and the high advantage is thta trhough it I or you know exactly and in specific what to look for. It’s more than all a true whole proccess to evaluate quality performance level not what I or you like it but if performs as should be.

I use between other recordings Disco music from the 60’s-70’s where was really strident in almost any system well any not well roo/system set up. In the same way I use, classical, jazz, blues, pop, female, orchestras, solo intruments as piano or trumpet, etc, etc,

"" 
Possibly, a 15K cartridge does everything perfectly, but not a 1K cartridge .."""

Through my process sometimes is the other way around like with my ADC 26/27 cartridge review.

R.

@orpheus10

Possibly, a 15K cartridge does everything perfectly, but not a 1K cartridge

Are you hypnotized by reviewers or manufacturers ?
Prices means nothing in the modern world of High-End, if you don’t have a reference among classic High-End cartridges you have no idea where do you going even with 15k budget, don’t let them fool you, there is NOTHING is the cartridge that cost $15k! The logic behind $15k pricing is not about fidelity at all and they are not better than many $1k cartridges. Also this thread is about MM cartridges, they are always cheaper than MC. The stylus is the most expensive part of MM cartidge. Some of the very best styli with exotic cantilevers cost under $1k max.  

Chakster, I was thinking about this cartridge, but it's not MM;


      https://www.needledoctor.com/Koetsu-Coralstone-Platinum-Phono-Cartridge


To be honest, I'm quite satisfied with the Grado; it reproduces nuances quite well. People who didn't choose Grado said they were musical, and that's my major requirement.

No, I'm not trying to sell Grado, my main point has been about the effort it takes to find one's own cartridge, the one that reproduces his musical requirements; this hasn't been easy, it's taken years.

The Pickering and Stanton cartridges I saw on the jukeboxes were Mono, just like the music on those 45's. Some people claim it's better than stereo.

Possibly, a 15K cartridge does everything perfectly, but not a 1K cartridge ..

Well I have had a $12K MC cartridge (Atlas) and still have a $10K MC cartridge (Palladian) and Chakster is right....
There is NO relationship.....absolutely NONE..... between the cost and the performances of cartridges.
The wealthy audiophiles who are "hypnotized by reviewers or manufacturers"....compare uber-expensive MC cartridges with their even MORE uber-expensive (but newly released) competitors and comment on their differences.....
But they are the SAME differences that the impoverished audiophiles can hear between ALL the cost-effective vintage MM cartridges 🤪🤗

In this hobby, I try to avoid the categorical statement (like "all MC cartridges are superior to all MM cartridges", or vice-versa), and I am suspicious of categorical statements put forth by anyone else.  Therefore I would say that a $15K cartridge might be absolutely superb.  But so too might a much, much less expensive cartridge.  I have to accept this proposition, because I don't want to be buying $15K cartridges just to prove that it is right or wrong thinking.  (The most I have ever paid is around $2K.) Among those of us on this thread, only a few who have taken the mega-expensive leap are qualified to dispute the proposition.  And it seems that neither Halcro nor Raul are prepared to take the contrary position that $15K (or let's say more than $10K) buys Nirvana.

Dear @lewm : The real subject down there is MARKETING where the very high price of items as in this case cartridges makes that the hiogher the price more desirable for gentlemans/audiophiles that in reality has ( not all of them. ) poor knowledge level in MUSIC/Audio and even don't know what are looking for paying those high prices other than show it to their friends that are with poor knowledge levels but always impressed by the high price of his friend cartridge.

What could happens if that Coral stone or the Blue Lace or the Goldfinger goes for 5K: something easy no one of those gentlemans buy it because are not so expensive.

We have here in Agon and other internet forums really whealthy gentlemans as could be downunder,syntax and several others and they prefers and sometimes even laughs about cartridges  at 1K-2K dollars.

Dop you think that any of these gentlemans can buy from me the ADC 26/27 cartridge of the 60's that outperforms the EPC100CMK4 and even any today top LOMC cartridge?, no way.

That kind of ADC cartridge is not to humble for them but not something they can be proud to show to their audio friends.

The relation-ship between price and quality level ratio really disappeared many years ago and disappeared mainly by our each one ignorance and that's why manufacturers takes advantage of  each one of us and this trend will follows and seems to me that's nothing that could styop it.

In other thread some one ask if the high price of tonearms is a rip-off and some one posted that maybe it's and told the OP that in cartridges is even worst.

Am I saying that cartridges must stay in a 1K-2K price range?, no not really could go a little higher but not to that 15K-28K that is totally unjustified no matter what.

The other issue is that the gentlemans that bougth those cartridges at those very high prices are really satisfied with even proudly of it and the question to all of them could be: why are you satisfied with, compared against what?

R.

@orpheus10 

The Pickering and Stanton cartridges I saw on the jukeboxes were Mono, just like the music on those 45's. Some people claim it's better than stereo.

  
As i said earlier in this post High-End cartridges does not comes with a Jukebox, but it would be nice to have analog jukebox for free. Also Jukeboxes does not comes with High-End cartridges from Stanton/Pickering. In my opinion stereo is better than mono, 99% of my vintage 45s are stereo. I like stereo better than mono. 

Sorry i've never tried a Koetsu, but if you will check the link below you will find comparison between Fidelity-Research FR-7 series versus Koetsu Coralstone. The price for FR-7f and even for FR-7fz (the best one) is still much cheaper than Koetsu.  

Old thread: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/mc-cartridge-mini-shootout-spu-koetsu-fr-ikeda 

And updates: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/fidelity-research-cartridges?highlight=fidelity-research%2Bcartridges 

Ckakster, jukeboxes in the city were the only high end; maybe you're thinking of jukeboxes in "podunk". Gangsters fought wars over whose jukebox would be where.

I would not have fed those jukeboxes with quarters for jive time music; they were composed of state of the art parts, like custom tube amps, beside the best cartridges and 45 turntable.

Jukeboxes were the only high end in the 60's for the ordinary person.

Chakster, the cartridges on jukeboxes were quite visible, and that brush on the end of the Pickering cartridge was unforgettable.

The jukeboxes I'm talking about were in sophisticated lounges that also featured live entertainment. The same professionals that installed sound systems in high end salons, also installed them in these lounges. Evidently you have no idea how important the sound system and music was to a lounge.

    These were among the cartridges they used;


        https://www.google.com/search?q=pickering+xv-15+625e&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=6...:

Among those of us on this thread, only a few who have taken the mega-expensive leap are qualified to dispute the proposition.

You actually don't need to own these 'uber-cartridges' to 'hear' them Lew.....
Fremer has been uploading high-res digital rips of various cartridge tests on his Analogue Planet Website for a while now, and not one of them has ever had the expensive LOMC (like the Anna and Atlas SL) as the winner (voted by the readers) against cheap current MM cartridges....
Why does this fact not resonate with wealthy audiophiles....?
See Raul's answer 🤥
Here is a Link to WTBF where you can actually hear YouTube uploads of uber-priced cartridges like VdH Colibri Master Signature ($12,000), Air Tight Opus 1 ($15,000), Clearaudio Goldfinger Statement ($16,000), Lyra Atlas SL ($13,000).
https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/hear-it-yourself.26355/

Be aware that these cartridges are playing on a new $200,000 turntable  through $300,000 horn speakers.
The music is unfortunately undemanding.....but listen carefully and tell me that you haven't heard equivalent sound from cheaper cartridges in your systems.....?!

@orpheus10 

Chakster, the cartridges on jukeboxes were quite visible, and that brush on the end of the Pickering cartridge was unforgettable.

You are talking about $50 Stanton AL-500 and $50 Pickering XV-15. These cartridges are the lowest quality mass market Stanton/Pickering product. Actually those cartridges are so called "professional series". Durability is the key, not the sound quality. The fact that you have recognized Stanton/Pickering brush does not make them better. These carts works with high tracking force, the diamonds are not natural. This is very cheap basic product.  

The jukeboxes I'm talking about were in sophisticated lounges that also featured live entertainment. The same professionals that installed sound systems in high end salons, also installed them in these lounges. Evidently you have no idea how important the sound system and music was to a lounge.

Jukebox era is definitely not the 80s, but 50s. I don't know what are you trying to say, but Stanton high-end cartridges starts from 881 series and up to 891 series, they are not from the jukebox era, they are invented in the mid 70s - early 80s. Look at this Stanton catalog to see them all. Unlike the cheapest Stanton Al-500 (which is awful cartridge) the 981 series cost up to $800 today and considering the best Stanton ever made. This is high-end cartridge today and you can easily compare 981 series to the $3000 MC cartridges from whatever manufacturer today.   

If High-End system is an old Jukebox for you then our vision is completely different with all my respect to the 50s aesthetic. 

1952 - Bozak Concert Grand
1953 - Garrard 301
1954 - Marantz Model 1 Consolette
1955 - Grado phono cartridge 
1956 - Quad ESL57
1959 - First MC phono cartridge (Grado)
1960 - Marantz Model 9 

Dear @halcro : Not only through different tonearms including that vintage today ( fashion ) 312 ( because is only a fashion and nothing else. ). In other thread I posted the very low knowledge MUSIC/Audio level of that gentleman against its very high whealty condition.
Money per se means almost nothing like in that kind of systems/videos. Yes, an Astatic MF-200 could make that kind of job with very high quality levels.

R.

@frogman

1959 - First MC phono cartridge (Grado)

This not the first MC phono cartridge, but first STEREO MC phono cartridge, an MC cartridge (MONO) invented by Ortofon in 1948. Anyway all those cartridges are garbage. You can also remember Gramophones and 78 rmp records, but it will be hard to argue that the best MM cartridges are all made in the 70s/80s and some of them are better than modern LOMC even if the price difference is x10 and not in favor of the LOMC. Grado holds patent for stereo MC, but all their cartridges are MI 

Point taken and thanks for the correction (re MC), but it appears you missed the larger point.

Audio Technica AT150ANV, $1549.

In Mike Fremer’s evaluation of nine cartridges, #2 was the 2M Black and #1 was the AT150ANV. He rates the AT150ANV as incrementally better, conveying wider dynamic swings, but the 2M Black is overall rated more organic and natural sounding, which would probably carry the day for me.

One thing that puzzles me is why, in Stereophile’s Recommended Components issue, the 2M Black has been dropped to Class C, the same as the 2M Blue. Pretty much every other review I’ve read of the 2M Black placed it at or near the top of every MM cart available.

He rates the AT150ANV as incrementally better

It actually was the winner as voted (blind listening) by his readers.
And I think it won IIRC against his Ortofon Anna in his Cobra arm on his Caliburn turntable.....

I have the AT150ANV and this is an excellent example of what Chakster and I are saying about 'modern' MM cartridges......
Whilst in a blind listening test the AT150ANV beat the Ortofon Anna......it cannot compete against the GOOD vintage MM of the 70s and 80s 😝

And when compared to the GREAT vintage MMs that Chakster and I mention......it is really 'chalk and cheese' 😴

Dear @halcro : In audio all is dependent on at least to critical subjects: r00m/system quality level and resolution and each one of us MUSIC/Sound priotities. I forgot a third one: how accurated is your proccess evaluation to always know the very tiny differences/nuances in between the different items: are you sure to be aware of those differences other than the obvious ones?

With out that all preferences/opinuions belongs to the common: " I like it more ".

R.